For the first time on record, the Chinese Communist party has lost all control, with the population of 20,000 in this southern fishing village now in open revolt.The last of Wukan’s dozen party officials fled on Monday after thousands of people blocked armed police from retaking the village, standing firm against tear gas and water cannons.Since then, the police have retreated to a roadblock, some three miles away, in order to prevent food and water from entering, and villagers from leaving. Wukan’s fishing fleet, its main source of income, has also been stopped from leaving harbour.The plan appears to be to lay siege to Wukan and choke a rebellion which began three months ago when an angry mob, incensed at having the village’s land sold off, rampaged through the streets and overturned cars.Although China suffers an estimated 180,000 “mass incidents” a year, it is unheard of for the Party to sound a retreat. . . .

These are clearly some brave people, and they are literally risking their lives in this rebellion. The ChiComs may not be quite as murderous as they were under Mao, but they are still a totalitarian regime. Needless to say, our hope and prayers ought to go out to these people. They’re going to need all of the help that they can get. Hopefully, they all don’t “disappear” (and our homegrown Communists boldly state that they never existed).

I’m thinking that eventually, someone is going to compare this to OWS. More likely than not, they are going to say something to the effect that these people are somehow resisting capitalism. Also, it reminds me of a recent exchange I had with our friend, The Classic Liberal. We had a disagreement regarding my take on the Occupy Berkeley Pepper Spray Incident. Here is that exchange…

Look, I find the OWS movement mostly wrong, ideologically confused, and incredibly uninteresting. But whatever it is they are or aren’t, doesn’t matter in this instance.

Not long ago, the British colonists of North America had run-ins with British soldiers as they protested rights violations, regulations and taxes that were insignificant to what we deal with now. The soldiers resorted often to violence. The North American Brits counted these among a long train of abuses …

British soldiers traveled across the vast ocean and risked their lives protecting the colonists from the Indians and French. Yet the colonists hated them, seeing them as occupiers, not protectors. A group our government today would considered a terrorist network, the Sons of Liberty, burned Andrew Oliver (a public official) in effigy before burning some of his property and raiding his house too. They created a small, but angry mob. The sheriffs were afraid for their lives that night and wouldn’t mess with them. The Sons of Liberty were also known to literally tar and feather tax collectors and bailiffs. They went after Tories (government loyalists) too, and worked aggressively to subvert and overthrow the government.

The original Tea Party was was a felony act of vandalism and theft. The Declaration of Independence was in fact a declaration of war. All of the above (and then some) were bold acts of treason.

Are you starting to get my point?

The cops in that video look more like soldiers than peace officers. Pepper-spraying those kids was neither defensive nor proportional (Christian doctrine). Those cops were no better than those “liberating” British soldiers in the colonies whom against those ungrateful colonists waged war.

The left/right argument is so 1960?s, and incredibly meaningless. OWS will soon fade out of existence*. It’s time to ask yourself whether you are a patriot (Sons of Liberty), or a Tory (state apologist)?

*Once caveat is that societal breakdown is nearing as a consequence of an ever more intrusive and violent police state. If the state overreacts (as they usually do), OWS will grow instead of fade, and we’ll have a repeat of the French revolution on our hands.

I think we are looking at OWS in radically different ways. My point is that this is an excellent opportunity to examine the hard left in unmasked action. We’ve seen the religious hate, the violence, the vandalism, and the calls for revolution and Communism. Yes, they have the large numbers of drugged hippies, who have no idea what or whom they are serving. We also have the violent elements, and the leadership, who are already in control (and marginalizing the more clueless elements). For the most part, this is nothing new-it’s simply being put into practice on a larger scale, and therefore bears examining, and exposing.

We also differ in that I’m looking at the end goals of the movement. You draw comparisons to behavior. Those cannot be argued, as they are factual. However, what are the end goals of that behavior? We know what the occupods want-they have told us. Also, we know where their support is. They want to take what they perceive to be the threat to freedom- the corporations, and control them with an all powerful state. Many of the followers have no idea where that will lead. We do-history teaches us where a powerful government leads.

On the contrary, our government, as envisioned, is a historical aberration. There were mobs, there were “criminal” acts, and intellectuals, and “rich” people were the heads of the movement. At almost any other point in history, such a revolution would have lead to a tyrannical state. Instead, Washington turned in his sword, and went home. Those rich intellectuals, rather than acting in their own interest, helped craft a system of government that placed the emphasis on the individual, and his rights, rather than on the power of government. Contrast that with where OWS is going. Will that revolution result in more human freedom, or would it lead to a bloody, tyrannical regime? Again, history is a teacher, and that is a cause for alarm.

In the end, behavior is a tool. It’s the end that we have to look at. I can use a hammer to build something for myself, or for others, or I can build gallows, a guillotine, and a Gulag. It’s not just the behaviors, it’s the motivations behind them.

I also look at the historical parallels to other protest movements. We have seen that leftist protesters have a history of staging events to garner public support. I’ve covered that here a good bit. From putting elderly and toddlers on the “front lines,” to provoking reactions from the police, they have been trying rather hard to stage another “Kent State.” It’s fake and contrived, but they have done it before, and it’s a safe bet that they will do it again.

My point is rather simple; civil disobedience is a tool. Yes, we can get stuck on behavior, but our eyes, ears, and brains need to be looking at the reasons for the behavior, as well as the stated goals of the people engaging in that behavior. From what we can tell (because the ChiComs aren’t exactly letting the citizens communicate with the outside world very much), the Chinese townspeople are upset that their government took their land from them, and are giving it to a developer. That would, if true, certainly qualify as crony capitalism. As a result, the villagers have kicked out their actual aggressors-the Communist Party officials that made the deal.

Let’s contrast that with OWS. The townspeople, again, went after the government officials that took their land, and gave it to someone else. OWS wants to empower government to take from others, and give to THEM. That, and the government, with more power to tax and confiscate, will abuse more and more people in the process. Similar behaviors are visible, but the goals are nearly diametrically opposed. Again, it’s easy to look at behavior and become alarmed. However, I will be persistent in looking at the motivations of the behavior, because that will always tell you whether something is truly dangerous.

Search

Tip Jar: Help Keep the CH 2.0 Going!

Ads by Google

NewsMax

Suscribe to our Email Newsletter!

Subscribe to our mailing list

CH 2.0 Search

Larwyn’s Linx

BadBlue Should be Your Aggregator of Choice

Amazon

The Conservative Hideout is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.